CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOUND IN SPEAKING CLASS AT THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA RESEARCH PAPER Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for A Bachelor Degree of Education in English Department by: IPUNG ANGGORO A 320 080 221 SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA 2013
18
Embed
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOUND IN SPEAKING CLASS AT THE ENGLISH …eprints.ums.ac.id/22799/21/Naskah_Publikasi.pdf · speak in English during Speaking Class. If students raise their hand
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOUND IN SPEAKING CLASS AT
THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF MUHAMMADIYAH
UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for A Bachelor Degree of Education
in English Department
by:
IPUNG ANGGORO A 320 080 221
SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
2013
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOUND IN SPEAKING CLASS AT THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF
SURAKARTA
IPUNG ANGGORO A320080221
SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
ABSTRACT
Corrective feedback itself can be done in many kinds of school level, starting from Play group, Kinder Garden, Elementary School, Junior High School, Senior High School, until the University. In University itself, besides English Department School of Teacher Training and Education and or the English Art surely use English as the Language all day long, the other faculties also use English as faculty quality supporter of each. UMS (Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta) as a University, that is apply the system of study based on international teaching system, a lot of student of UMS (Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta) complaining about English, such as interpreting, writing, reading, listening, and also conversing in Language English. From those skills above, the researcher focuses corrective feedback on speaking. It is assumed that, speaking needs more correctness such as in pronunciation, grammar, and fluency, so the corrective feedback will be more intense done by the teacher. The writer formulates the problems, the types of corrective feedback used by the teacher in UMS, the frequency of each type of corrective feedback used by the teacher in teaching speaking in UMS, the dominant type of corrective feedback used by the teacher in teaching speaking in UMS, and the implication of corrective feedback used by the teacher in UMS.
The objective of the study is to describe the types of corrective feedback used by the teacher in UMS, to describe the frequency of corrective feedback used by the teacher in teaching speaking in UMS, to know the dominant type of corrective feedback used by the teacher in teaching speaking in UMS, and to know the implication of corrective feedback used by the teacher in UMS. The method of this research is qualitative where the researcher describes the corrective feedback that was happened in speaking I, II, III and IV did by speaking teacher.
The result of the study found that after the observation, the researcher found that there five types of corrective feedback used by the teacher in UMS. That was clarification request, recast, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and translation. The frequency of the use of corrective feedback found clarification request found 69 data or about 59%, recast 23 data or about 19,7%, metalinguistic found 17 data or about 14,5%, explicit correction found 4 data or about 3,4%, and translation found 4 data or about 3,4%. The most dominant type of using corrective feedback used by the teacher in teaching speaking in UMS is that clarification request where that was found 69 data. The implication of using corrective feedback on English speaking is that, the student will be brave to active on every teaching learning activity especially on speaking. Kata kunci: Descriptive, Speaking, Corrective Feedback.
1. Background of the Study
Terms such as error correction, error treatment, corrective feedback,
negative evidence, and negative feedback have been used in teaching learning
English in the past. In this study, corrective feedback is one of the procedures that
used by the researcher. It is a type of negative evidence which can be defined as
“any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect”
(Lightbown and Spada 1999, as quoted in El Tatawy 2002:1), and since it does
not always provide the correct form, it will force learners to make use of their own
language knowledge. Usually, different teacher will have a different feedback
among the learners. Corrective feedback will give information about the
correctness of a learner utterance, whereas correction would suggest that students
actually learn and improve their knowledge of the language with the help of the
correction (Long 1977, as quoted in Ellis 1994:71).
Corrective feedback can be done in all of school levels, such as Play
group, Kinder Garden, Elementary School, Junior High School, Senior High
School, and University. In this study the researcher wants to analyze the
corrective feedback in University, where the teacher is a native speaker of
English. The native speaker usually does not focus on all the feedback; recast
information, or questions that raise the learners' awareness of the
erroneous utterances, without teacher explicit provision of correct
form. This means metalinguistic feedback points to the nature of error
but attempts to elicit the information from the students. Grammar
explanations or lexical paraphrases are typical to metalinguistic
feedback. Teaching speaking in UMS in speaking I, III and IV the
teacher uses metalinguistic feedback as the corrective feedback. There
were found 17 data of metalinguistic feedback corrective feedback,
below is the sample of metalinguistic feedback corrective feedback did
by the teacher. Below is the Metalinguistic feedback based on
observation:
S: UMS to create the student who have a good students
T: UMS was created some good students
4) Explicit correction corrective feedback
Explicit correction falling at the explicit extreme on the
continuum of corrective feedback refers to “the explicit provision of
the correct form. As the teacher provides the correct form, he or she
clearly indicates that what the student had said was incorrect. Teaching
speaking in UMS in speaking I, III and IV the teacher uses explicit
correction as the corrective feedback. There were only found 4 data of
corrective feedback, below is the sample of explicit correction
corrective feedback did by the teacher. Below is the example of recast
based on the observation:
T: its time for Game, the rule is change the present word in to the past
T: “Fight”
S 1: Fighted
T: No, Next
S2: Fought
T: Yes, that’s right
5) Translation Corrective Feedback
Translation can be seen as “a feedback move when it follows a
student’s unsolicited uses of the source language”. Nevertheless, “there
is a relevant difference between a recast (a response to an ill formed
utterance in the target language) and a translation (a response to a well-
formed utterance in the source language)”. Teaching speaking in UMS
in speaking I, III and IV the teacher uses translation as the corrective
feedback. There were found 4 data of translation corrective feedback,
below is the sample of Translation corrective feedback did by the
teacher. Below is the other example of translation corrective feedback:
S: The misi and visi of UMS is created a good attitude
T: The mission and vision of UMS is created a good attitude
4. Conclusion
Based on the research result, the researcher concludes that corrective
feedback found in speaking classroom in English Department of UMS as
follows:
a. The Types of Corrective Feedback Used by the Teacher in UMS
After the observation, the researcher found that there five types of
corrective feedback used by the teacher in UMS. That was clarification
request, recast, metalinguistic feedback, explicit correction, and
translation.
b. The Frequency of Each Type of Corrective Feedback Used by the Teacher
in Teaching Speaking in UMS.
The frequency of the use of corrective feedback found clarification
request found 69 data or about 59%, recast 23 data or about 19,7%,
metalinguistic found 17 data or about 14,5%, explicit correction found 4
data or about 3,4%, and translation found 4 data or about 3,4%.
c. The Dominant Type of Corrective Feedback Used by the Teacher in
Teaching Speaking in UMS
The most dominant type of using corrective feedback used by the
teacher in teaching speaking in UMS is that clarification request where
that was found 69 data.
d. The Pedagogical Implication of Corrective Feedback Used by the Teacher
in UMS
The implication of using corrective feedback on English speaking
is that, the student will be brave to active on every teaching learning
activity especially on speaking. But, there are a negative impact on
student’s learning, where the students will less on thinking and become
passive by waiting the feedback by the teacher. Teacher, where in this
study were native speaker, she must prepare bravely her material because
she will have a different atmosphere at class, where her student have a
different language.
Corrective feedback has a positive effect on improving
speaking English accuracy. There are two types of corrective feedback
that is better to used in teaching speaking, clarification request is a better
one because the teacher gives correction directly when the students makes
their mistake on speaking. Corrective feedback does make great effect on
oral accuracy, but the effectiveness for different level of learner is
different. For medium and low group learners, the effectiveness is better,
because there is enough space for them to be improved. For high group
learners, their oral accuracy is better, what they need to do is improve their
oral fluency and complexity. The implication of using corrective feedback
on English speaking is that, the student will be brave to active on every
teaching learning activity especially on speaking. But, there are a negative
impact on student’s learning, where the students will less on thinking and
become passive by waiting the feedback by the teacher. Teacher, where in
this study were native speaker, she must prepare bravely her material
because she will have a different atmosphere at class, where her student
have a different language.
There are some opinions, that claims about the corrective feedback,
for example, Harmer (1983) in Ellis (2009: 4-5), for example, argued that
when students are engaged in communicative activity, the teacher should
not intervene by “telling students that they are making mistakes, insisting
on accuracy and asking for repetition”. while others are convinced that
the feedback that teachers give is highly beneficial for students
(Lyster et al. 1999). While, on the research did by the researcher, it looks
like, the students need more attention in correction, especially the
corrective feedback for the language that is not theirs. This implies that
further research should be conducted in order to establish a common
ground, and perhaps settle the score once and for all. Additionally, more
research is needed so that concrete evidence can be found of the
connection between corrective feedback and learning–does the feedback
that teachers give actually facilitate learning.
5. Bibliography
Bargiela, Marcelo Marconsin. 2003. Teacher Feedback and Learners’ Uptake. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, Tubarão, v. 4, n. 1, p. 81-96.
Basiron, Halizah Binti. 2008. Corrective Feedback in Dialogue-based Computer Assisted Language Learning. New Zealand: University of Otago
Campillo, Patricia Salazar. 2004-2005. an Analysis of Uptake Following Teachers’ Feedback in the EFL Classroom. Universitat Jaume I (Casstellon).
Fauziati, Endang. 2008. TEFL. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.
Heift, Trude. 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. Canada: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, Sara.2010. Corrective Feedback for Learners of Varied Proficiency Levels: A Teacher’s Choices. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada Vol. 27, No 2.
Samar, Reza G. 2009. Corrective Feedback in EFL Classrooms: Learner Negotiation Strategies and Uptake. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning Year 52 No. 212.
Sheen, Young Hee. 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Columbia:
Sri Rukmini, Atik. 2007. The Implementation of Teacher Corrective Feedback in Teaching writing Descriptive Text to The second year Students of SMP N 1 Tunjungan in 2010/2011 Academic Year. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.
Surakka, Kati. 2007. Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in an EFL Classroom. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino.
Suzuki, Mikiko. Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Adult ESL Classrooms. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 2.
Tedick, Diane J. 1998. Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching. Indiana: University of Minnesota
Yousefi, Mohammad Hossein and Reza Biria. 2011. Interactional feedback, task-based interaction and learner uptake. Contemporary Online Language Education Journal, 1, 1-19.
Yulianti, Ratih Nasalia. 2008. Teacher’s Corrective Feedback in Teaching Writing Recount Text to the First Year of SMA Muhammadiyah I Surakarta in 2011/2012 Academic Year. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press.